| 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189819] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 19:55  |
redrumloa
Messages: 340
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Is the 1571 a sissy? I am getting more and more *old* used disks off
eBay and I think I am seeing a pattern. The 1571 chokes quick and I
have to clean the head often. The 1541 OTOH seems to handle most of
the same disks without a problem.
Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189891 is a reply to message #189819] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 22:03  |
jbones
Messages: 42
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On Feb 20, 7:55 pm, redrumloa <amiga...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Is the 1571 a sissy? I am getting more and more *old* used disks off
> eBay and I think I am seeing a pattern. The 1571 chokes quick and I
> have to clean the head often. The 1541 OTOH seems to handle most of
> the same disks without a problem.
>
> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
I always assumed the 1541 was inferior based on all the alignment
problems I had with it. Maybe the key is the old disks. How does it
perform with new disks formatted on the same 1571?
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189892 is a reply to message #189819] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 22:14 |
Rick Youngman
Messages: 549
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 20, 5:55 pm, redrumloa <amiga...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Is the 1571 a sissy? I am getting more and more *old* used disks off
> eBay and I think I am seeing a pattern. The 1571 chokes quick and I
> have to clean the head often. The 1541 OTOH seems to handle most of
> the same disks without a problem.
>
> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
Strictly my opinion....
They are a piece of crap.... I absolutley despise them .... I'd rather
have ( 8 ) 1541's hooked up'ed , than 4 "double-sided" 1571's
anyday, for relialability.
This "hate" for the drive, come's from being a SysOp... they always
were mis-reading disk's ect. ==== that may have had a LOT to do with
the quality of the floppie itself.... but I doubt it
Besides "that" fact..... I can gaurantee.... many users have
"flucked" up a 1571 disk -- "thinking" it was a 1541 disk and visa-
versa, and destroyed one side of it.
Some people "love" this drive --- but thats probably because the never
had a 1581
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189893 is a reply to message #189819] |
Wed, 20 February 2008 23:01 |
rbernardo
Messages: 868
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 20, 4:55 pm, Jim wrote:
> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
Neither drive is a "heavy-duty" machine. Our club
treasurer has gone through many 1541s and 1571s, and
they have all been done in by bad disks. (He runs a
service in which people send them their CBM disks
with text files (prg, seq, or screencode), then he
converts the text to MS Word or PC txt, and then
mails back a PC disk(s), CDs, or e-mails the converted
files to the customer. Very time-consuming... and with
old, dirty, error-prone disks, very destructive to 1541s
and 1571s).
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug
The Other Group of Amigoids
http://www.calweb.com/~rabel1/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189899 is a reply to message #189819] |
Thu, 21 February 2008 06:36 |
rusure
Messages: 1030
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 20, 5:55 pm, redrumloa <amiga...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Is the 1571 a sissy? I am getting more and more *old* used disks off
> eBay and I think I am seeing a pattern. The 1571 chokes quick and I
> have to clean the head often. The 1541 OTOH seems to handle most of
> the same disks without a problem.
>
> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
I hope this message isn't a duplicate.
Are you using flippy disks or are there loading accelerators on your
used disks. Both could cause problems when you power up a C128 and a
1571 in C128 mode. Flippies confuse 1571s with the original ROM and
loading accelorators may not work if they are intended for 1541s. Is
there an improvement if you issue a "U0>M0" comand to your 1571. If
you are using a C64 or you power up a C128 while the C= key is
depressed, then you have another problem.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189902 is a reply to message #189899] |
Thu, 21 February 2008 08:40 |
Riccardo Rubini
Messages: 969
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rusure wrote:
> On Feb 20, 5:55 pm, redrumloa <amiga...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Is the 1571 a sissy? I am getting more and more *old* used disks off
>> eBay and I think I am seeing a pattern. The 1571 chokes quick and I
>> have to clean the head often. The 1541 OTOH seems to handle most of
>> the same disks without a problem.
>>
>> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
>
> I hope this message isn't a duplicate.
>
> Are you using flippy disks or are there loading accelerators on your
> used disks. Both could cause problems when you power up a C128 and a
> 1571 in C128 mode. Flippies confuse 1571s with the original ROM and
Without causing further confusion about this matter, please remember that
DOS ROMs with a revision equal or prior to -03 are affected by the "flippy
disk" bug. So it's not only the "original" one, I assume you were talking
about revision -01, but a couple others that came later as well. The
revision -04 and -05 are not affected by the flippy disk problem and bring
in a lot of other bugfixes.
Use this code to see what revision your 1571 is. If you have a -03 or
earlier, it's a good idea to upgrade.
100 DN=8:CLOSE1:OPEN1,DN,15,"U9":INPUT#1,EN,EM$,ET,ES
110 IFRIGHT$(EM$,2)<>"71"THENPRINT:PRINT"NOT A 1571 DRIVE":CLOSE1:END
120 PRINT#1,"M-R"CHR$(0)CHR$(128)CHR$(2):GET#1,A$,B$:CLOSE1
130 A=ASC(A$+CHR$(0)):B=ASC(B$+CHR$(0)):R$="UNKNOWN"
140 IFA=157THENIFB=30THENR$="-01"
150 IFA=146THENIFB=37THENR$="-03"
160 IFA=242THENIFB=104THENR$="-05"
162 IFA=2THENIFB=68THENR$="D UPGRADE"
170 PRINT"1571 DOS ROM REVISION IS ";R$
If any of you is in need of programmed EPROMs, to substitute an old DOS chip
with the latest -05 revision, I can help out with that.
Riccardo
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189907 is a reply to message #189819] |
Thu, 21 February 2008 13:11 |
Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hello redrumloa, you wrote:
> Is the 1571 a sissy? I am getting more and more *old* used disks off
> eBay and I think I am seeing a pattern. The 1571 chokes quick and I
> have to clean the head often. The 1541 OTOH seems to handle most of
> the same disks without a problem.
>
> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
my main MNib/Nibtools dumping disk drive is a
1571 disk drive. This specific model got some
superior features in reading weak bit areas
(longer runs of zero-bitstreams), therefore I
always start with dumping a disk three times
with the 1571.
If the disk dump output log tells me that
there are some unrecoverable errors (well, you
need to have a good feeling about what is an
error and what is copy protection) _and_ if
these errors cannot be worked around by
cleaning the heads and reading the disk
multiple more times, then I switch to another
disk drive.
The next best drive to chose is a 1541-II disk
drive with the direct drive mechanism. I
prefer the direct drive motors (1571 as well
as 1541-II) because of their great RPM
stability. And then the R/W amplifier
electronics of the 1541-II disk drive is much
more forgiving to bad and dusted disks.
On the other side that superior 1541-II
electronics may be too good in the sense that
deliberate disk surface errors may not be read
as such. Therefore I'm nibbling always with a
1571 disk drive and additionally with a 1541-II,
if needed.
Womo
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189908 is a reply to message #189893] |
Thu, 21 February 2008 13:14 |
Wolfgang Moser
Messages: 632
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hoho,
rbernardo@value.net schrieb:
> On Feb 20, 4:55 pm, Jim wrote:
>
>> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
>
> Neither drive is a "heavy-duty" machine. Our club
> treasurer has gone through many 1541s and 1571s, and
> they have all been done in by bad disks. (He runs a
> service in which people send them their CBM disks
> with text files (prg, seq, or screencode), then he
> converts the text to MS Word or PC txt, and then
> mails back a PC disk(s), CDs, or e-mails the converted
> files to the customer. Very time-consuming... and with
> old, dirty, error-prone disks, very destructive to 1541s
> and 1571s).
in that case, a so named cleaning diskette is your
best friend. Dependent on the sort of "dust" -- it
sometimes is the magnetic material itself that
solves from the disk surface and gets onto the R/W
head -- you may need to "wet" the R/W head with
alcohol for a long time, before you start using the
cleaning disk (also dipped with alcohol).
Womo
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189914 is a reply to message #189902] |
Thu, 21 February 2008 16:55 |
rusure
Messages: 1030
Registered: March 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 21, 6:40 am, "Riccardo Rubini" <rub...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> If any of you is in need of programmed EPROMs, to substitute an
> old DOS chip with the latest -05 revision, I can help out with that.
I am not sure about this but I suspect that a 1571 JIFFYDos ROM may
also fix the 1571 problems equipped with older Commodore ROM chips.
As I said earlier, issuing a "U0>M0" command could reduce problems
that arise when loading either flippy disks or using loading
accelerators
intended for use with 1541s. I failed to mention earlier that the
command places the 1571 in single sided or 1541 mode. The reason
why I say single sided rather than 1541 mode is because a 1571 in
single sided mode can stil do more than a 1541 in any of its modes.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189919 is a reply to message #189914] |
Thu, 21 February 2008 19:29 |
|
|
Originally posted by: bluebirdpod
On Feb 21, 2:55 pm, rusure <r_u_s...@mybluelight.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 6:40 am, "Riccardo Rubini" <rub...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> If any of you is in need of programmed EPROMs, to substitute an
>> old DOS chip with the latest -05 revision, I can help out with that.
>
> I am not sure about this but I suspect that a 1571 JIFFYDos ROM may
> also fix the 1571 problems equipped with older Commodore ROM chips.
>
> As I said earlier, issuing a "U0>M0" command could reduce problems
> that arise when loading either flippy disks or using loading
> accelerators
> intended for use with 1541s. I failed to mention earlier that the
> command places the 1571 in single sided or 1541 mode. The reason
> why I say single sided rather than 1541 mode is because a 1571 in
> single sided mode can stil do more than a 1541 in any of its modes.
does the latest release of JD 1571 v6.0 or is it 601 have the bug fix
v05 routines incorporated into the roms ??
Dont forget the screw holding the weight on the spindal of a 1541-II
direct drive has left hand threads ! ouch, broke that
screw in half with it stuck in the spindle, I am disassembling a
direct drive to see if there is a way to make a speed controller
modification to this drive, I have found a solution for the 1571
newtronics direct drive, but not the 1541-II direct drive, but I got a
lot of peices ! LOL.
-BBP
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189948 is a reply to message #189902] |
Fri, 22 February 2008 09:07 |
redrumloa
Messages: 340
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Feb 21, 8:40 am, "Riccardo Rubini" <rub...@despammed.com> wrote:
> rusure wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 5:55 pm, redrumloa <amiga...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Is the 1571 a sissy? I am getting more and more *old* used disks off
>>> eBay and I think I am seeing a pattern. The 1571 chokes quick and I
>>> have to clean the head often. The 1541 OTOH seems to handle most of
>>> the same disks without a problem.
>
>>> Is this specific 1571 flaky or are all 1571s wimpier than 1541s?
>
>> I hope this message isn't a duplicate.
>
>> Are you using flippy disks or are there loading accelerators on your
>> used disks. Both could cause problems when you power up a C128 and a
>> 1571 in C128 mode. Flippies confuse 1571s with the original ROM and
>
> Without causing further confusion about this matter, please remember that
> DOS ROMs with a revision equal or prior to -03 are affected by the "flippy
> disk" bug. So it's not only the "original" one, I assume you were talking
> about revision -01, but a couple others that came later as well. The
> revision -04 and -05 are not affected by the flippy disk problem and bring
> in a lot of other bugfixes.
>
> Use this code to see what revision your 1571 is. If you have a -03 or
> earlier, it's a good idea to upgrade.
> 100 DN=8:CLOSE1:OPEN1,DN,15,"U9":INPUT#1,EN,EM$,ET,ES
> 110 IFRIGHT$(EM$,2)<>"71"THENPRINT:PRINT"NOT A 1571 DRIVE":CLOSE1:END
> 120 PRINT#1,"M-R"CHR$(0)CHR$(128)CHR$(2):GET#1,A$,B$:CLOSE1
> 130 A=ASC(A$+CHR$(0)):B=ASC(B$+CHR$(0)):R$="UNKNOWN"
> 140 IFA=157THENIFB=30THENR$="-01"
> 150 IFA=146THENIFB=37THENR$="-03"
> 160 IFA=242THENIFB=104THENR$="-05"
> 162 IFA=2THENIFB=68THENR$="D UPGRADE"
> 170 PRINT"1571 DOS ROM REVISION IS ";R$
>
> If any of you is in need of programmed EPROMs, to substitute an old DOS chip
> with the latest -05 revision, I can help out with that.
>
> Riccardo
All my drives have the latest JiffyDOS.
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189949 is a reply to message #189819] |
Fri, 22 February 2008 09:10 |
redrumloa
Messages: 340
Registered: December 2004
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
From the replies I am thinking maybe it is just *my* 1571? Disks
formatted/created with the 1571 work fine, but many older floppies off
just choke and won't read. So far most of these that choke on the 1571
are working just fine on an older revision 1541.
Looks like I will be installing a buttload of 8-11 toggle switches :-/
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #189962 is a reply to message #189949] |
Fri, 22 February 2008 18:43 |
|
|
Originally posted by: bluebirdpod
On Feb 22, 7:10 am, redrumloa <amiga...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> From the replies I am thinking maybe it is just *my* 1571? Disks
> formatted/created with the 1571 work fine, but many older floppies off
> just choke and won't read. So far most of these that choke on the 1571
> are working just fine on an older revision 1541.
>
> Looks like I will be installing a buttload of 8-11 toggle switches :-/
There is a longevity problem associated with any floppy drive, and
what they say
is that you should or whoever should always put either a disk or the
head protector
into the drive if you do not use the drive on a regular basis, the
head(s) are attached
sometimes not always with spring material, and when the drive is in
eject status, there
is a level that raises either the head or the clamping pad, the arm
that either the head
or the clamp may not be on a hinge. Instead they used spring material
that is flat and
bronze colored and very flimsy, this tends to warp as the head/
clamping pad level ONLY
lifts ONE side of the head/clamp arm, if your drive does not use this,
then you are ok,
you would have to look at the drive mechs themselves to determine
this, it is a wide known
problem. A quick look at a MSD floppy mech reveals a hinge setup and
is not susceptable
to this warp, but many 1571/s and 1541s are that flat flimzy spring
metal and it will warp
and on a 1571 could cause the head not to clamp the disk correctly and
put extra pressure
on part of the head and the disk, even causing spiral scratches.
Also look for mold on the disk surfaces, this is a much bigger problem
than the warping effect
look at this cbm post
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.cbm/browse_thread/th read/addfb81af326917d/78b273a92485d6e6?lnk=gst&q=disk+mo ld#78b273a92485d6e6
or do a google search in this newsgroup for this
OLD DISKS NOT LOADING FROM MOLD !!
-BLUEBIRDPOD
|
|
|
|
| Re: 1541 more robust/reliable than 1571? [message #190080 is a reply to message #189962] |
Mon, 25 February 2008 14:10 |
David Murray
Messages: 1017
Registered: January 2005
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I've had several 1571's over the years and never had one go bad. I
have had several 1541's go bad, though. I've always liked the 1571
both for the extra storage capacity, the abaility to read MFM formats
(though I never used it for CP/M) and the fact that it doesn't head-
bang. I also like the design of the case better as it is flat and
easier to stack drives, though I seldomly did this. In fact, when I
am using my genuine commodore 64, which I do about once a year, I
always pull out my 64C and a 1571 disk drive. I would use the 1581
but it won't play most of the games I want because they are not single-
file games.
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
